The Allahabad High Court recently imposed a penalty of ₹1 lakh on a 77-year-old man, Randhir Kumar Pandey, for making baseless accusations against senior advocates and district judges in Kanpur Nagar [Randhir Kumar Pandey v. Purushottam Das Maheshwari].
Justice Neeraj Tiwari highlighted that the allegations were unfounded and seemed to be aimed solely at tarnishing the judiciary’s reputation. The court remarked, “In written submissions filed by the petitioner-defendant before the Appellate Court, there are serious allegations against counsels, District Judge, and many other Judges of the Kanpur Nagar Judgeship, which is also not supported by any affidavit. This is nothing but an attempt to malign the institution’s reputation.”
Due to Pandey’s advanced age and health issues, the court chose not to initiate contempt of court proceedings against him. However, his plea was dismissed, and he was ordered to pay ₹1 lakh to the High Court Legal Services Committee.
The court further instructed that if Pandey fails to deposit the amount, the Registrar General of the High Court would notify the District Magistrate/District Collector, Kanpur Nagar, to recover the sum as arrears of land revenue.
Pandey had initially filed a review plea against a May 5, 2024, judgment related to his eviction from a rented property. During the hearing, Pandey’s counsel stated that his client did not wish to contest the case on merits and requested a one-year extension to vacate the rented shop. The court granted this request on specific conditions.
Later, Pandey challenged the decision, claiming he never instructed his counsel, Senior Advocate D.P. Singh, to refrain from contesting the case on merits. Representing himself, Pandey also made vague accusations against Senior Advocate Atul Dayal and district judges from Kanpur Nagar. However, the court noted that these claims were not backed by any affidavits.
The lawyers involved, including Senior Advocate Singh and Senior Advocate Dayal, refuted Pandey’s allegations. Singh even reported that Pandey had visited his chamber and misbehaved with him, while Dayal also raised concerns about Pandey’s conduct.
The court found Pandey’s accusations baseless and inappropriate, dismissing his review plea and ordering him to pay the ₹1 lakh penalty for his frivolous submissions and abuse of legal process.
The court’s July 29 order stated, “Considering the serious health issues of the petitioner and his age, i.e., 77 years, this Court restrains itself from initiating criminal contempt proceedings against him. However, the review application is vague and a gross misuse of the legal process. Therefore, it is dismissed with costs of ₹1 lakh, which the petitioner shall deposit before the Registrar General of the High Court within 15 days.”
Pandey represented himself in court, while Advocate Rama Goel Bansal appeared for the respondent, Purushottam Das Maheshwari, in the rental property dispute.
